SENATE BILL: Pregnant Women Support Act (Law'd)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I'm back...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Senators- this legislation is not designed to ban abortion but to provide altrnatives...helping women thru a difficult pregnancy both financially and moral support. It connects women with support centers and adoption centers.
I believe the clauses are fairly straightforward and would welcome any questions and comments

[CLARENCE 2015!]

This bill is a disaster and I hope you all have the courage to defeat it.

As usual- you sure do show the poise that can bring people together ;-)

For those of you who- unlike Napoleon- had constructive comments...I see and understand your concerns...I will be proposing an amendment tonite to hopefully address most of them

[CLARENCE 2015!]

The word "all" suggests bringing everyone together, true?

If by every one you mean those on the left- sure you have attempted to bring them together by- for example- coercing an entire party to back you... but that's for another time

Rather then see value in certain parts of the bill- which others did and which I have aimed to do with every bill- you label the entire bill a "disaster" with no attempt to find common ground or work together... you are the equivalent in Atlasia of the Tea Party in your lack of willingness to compromise and abrasive attitude...your politics may not be extreme (I'm no expert on your views) but your tactics certainly are
Polnut- despite my disagreements with him- has brought people together and acted in a way a leader should... with dignity and respect for opposing views. I wish your attitude would match your intelligence pal

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Clarence, can you answer the concerns that Scott, myself, and others have about Section 2?  At the moment, I cannot support this legislation.

Absolutely- as mentioned working on an amendment which I believe addresses those concerns...
In general- I would not propose putting federal funding into any clinic or institution which will lie to women or pressure, coerce, or shame them. 2b1 is- on second thought- meant for that purpose and I will delete that in my amendment

[CLARENCE 2015!]

The only coercion relevant to this bill is the coercion against a woman's choice that exists in nearly every clause of this bill. I see that you would rather toss out ad hominems then actually defend whatever merits you see in this bill that is indeed a disaster waiting to happen.

Section 3 is not worthy of support. Section 2, the problems have already been outlined. Section 5 harasses women repeatedly about their pregnancy. Section 6 and 8 have already been discussed by the President and Section 7 allows the government to collect personal information about pregnant women without their consent. I don't believe any party of this bill should be supported and I think the Senate should read these bills before forming their opinions. This bill would do a lot of harm and not much good, most of the services are already available and exist in this bill only to give the illusion that this anti-choice bill is helping women. I wont be fooled by it.

Well thus far- your opinion is unique as others have found positive aspects or at least recognized the intention. As I've announced- I'm working on an amendment to address productive concerns expressd by others...rather then propose some yourself as others have, you choose to flatly disregard the entire bill and assume its supporters haven't read it and assume that I fluffed it in an effort to "fool" Senators into supporting it

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I am not going to do the Senate's job. I stopped by to offer my opinion as an Atlasian citizen. Not as Governor, not as a candidate, simply as a citizen who sees the irreparable flaws within this bill.

As Governor of the Northeast, I oppose this bill's attempting at reducing regional autonomy over health care policy further.

The second statement is one I will challenge...but that's for another time and place

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Another time and place? I would think that this is the perfect time and place to discuss this bill.

What I was referencing was your general policy of opposing a reduction of regional autonomy over health care...not specifically as to this bill

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I am not going to do the Senate's job. I stopped by to offer my opinion as an Atlasian citizen. Not as Governor, not as a candidate, simply as a citizen who sees the irreparable flaws within this bill.

As Governor of the Northeast, I oppose this bill's attempting at reducing regional autonomy over health care policy further.

It is cute how you keep attacking me and can't even be bothered to defend the bill. Anything I say is "unproductive" even though it is true and I'm sure that many others will agree. There is a reason I said Senators must have the COURAGE to defeat this- because I knew you would do this, it is exactly why all the nice-sounding clauses that don't really do anything were included in the first place.

The best you can do is label your opponents "unproductive" and made other rude comparisons. All I've done is offer my opinion on this bill, as a citizen and constituent, and explain why I don't think they can be reconciled. Your tactics might be in more need of reflection, than mine, if this is your best defense of the bill.

You added the last two paragraphs after I had responded so here is my reply to those-

If you go back to where I proposed this legislation...you will see a link to a bill which passed the US Congress (largely sponsored by Democrats) that was proposed to me by one of my constituents to edit and put forward here...I eliminated many other portions but to say that I specifically added portions to trick Senators with wording is false
I actually welcome a discussion on specific clauses- your mentioning of your issues with those clauses is produtive- but your first statement here is indicative of your abrasive style which I have seen and been warned of since I registered in Atlasia...I dont give much of a damn since this is an online board and no true lives will be affected by this legislation- but I do feel an obligation to point this out in the event you serve as President over here that you'll be a poor leader if you lead with abrasiveness, generalizations, and coercion

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Also- I am working on an amendment to meet the concerns of those who have engaged in this discussion...which I'll be proposing tonight

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Clarence, I don't think you can claim not to be abrasive. I mean, I like you but you throw out personal attacks in debates from time to time.
Now, you may not have been the one to add those provisions but I know about the political tricks of the pro-life movement and many were visible here. I had assumed you wrote the bill since you sponsored it.

I'll admit to being abrasive at times...I like you too Napoleon but though I can get riled up at times I try my best to see the other side and find the good in what others propose...even though I may disagree with some of it I work tof ind common ground. You chapped my ass by coming in here with no seeming effort to find common ground- instead simply calling my bill a "disaster". You call me and fellow Whigs "extremists" despite the fact that many of us are very moderate in many ways... this is another example of the black and white approach you take 

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Clarence, I don't think you can claim not to be abrasive. I mean, I like you but you throw out personal attacks in debates from time to time.
Now, you may not have been the one to add those provisions but I know about the political tricks of the pro-life movement and many were visible here. I had assumed you wrote the bill since you sponsored it.

I do feel an obligation to point this out in the event you serve as President over here that you'll be a poor leader if you lead with abrasiveness, generalizations, and coercion

Would a better model of debate be the way you handled the Broadcaster bill? I doubt it. I come here as a citizen, not a President or Senator, and have no power to work a compromise. All I can do is point out that the bill in its current form is a disaster. If the Senate wants to amend it so that it is not a disaster that is their prerogative, but it has little to do with how I would act as President, or even as a Senator. I highly encourage you not to play the "abrasive" card considering some of the statements you've made in the past, and also think that your Presidential campaign should remain separate from your Senate duties. We did not elect you so you could run your Presidential campaign from the Senate floor. That is poor decorum.

Regarding the Broadcaster bill- I sponsored the damn thing! I disagreed with nearly all of it but sponsored it because the idea had merit and deserved debate...nice try

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I am a firm believer that you should NOT sponsor bills you will not support. It makes the entire debate process tedious.

Now, you continue discussing my character and personality here in this thread while dismissing my arguments against this bill as better left to "another time and place".

When Representatives in the Northeast Assembly have concerns with my proposals, I explain to them the merits rather than dismissing them outright and attacking their character.

I sponsored it as the Senate was stalled and we needed to debate something...I stand by it

As for merits- I've mentioned several times now I am working on an amendment now to address concerns of those who have criticized parts of the bill...and I've not attacked your character- I've attacked your approach

[CLARENCE 2015!]

My proposed amendment is the following-

2- DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ON ABORTION.
(a) In General- Health facilities that perform abortions in or affecting interstate commerce shall obtain informed consent from the pregnant woman seeking to have the abortion. Informed consent shall exist only after a woman has voluntarily completed or opted not to complete pre-abortion counseling sessions.

(b) Accurate Information- Counseling sessions under subsection (a) shall include the following information:

(1) How the abortion procedure is performed.

(2) Possible short-term and long-term risks and complications of the procedure to be performed.

(3) Options or alternatives to abortion, including, but not limited to, adoption, and the resources available in the community to assist women choosing these options.

(4) The availability of post-procedure medical services to address the risks and complications of the procedure.

(c) Exception- This section shall not apply when the pregnant woman is herself incapable, under State law, of making medical decisions. This section does not affect or modify any requirement under State law for making medical decisions for such patients.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

As you can see- I've gotten rid of 2b1 which involved the OBGYN dscribing the gestational age and characteristics of the unborn child. I do believe that this could be heavily scarring for a woman in this position...

I want to be clear- this bill is not designed to hurt women- it IS designed to encourage them not to have an abortion. By knowing the govt is on their side to help them as they go thru an incredibly difficult period in their lives, women will hopefully be encouraged to continue with the pregnancy and the unborn child will  have a chance

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I also want you all to consider that this bill removes pregnancy as a preexisting condition in the health care industry... this is a major step for women

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I don't believe the state should be in the business of taking sides, which is clear by how this issue is being approached.

There are clear rights that women have, but I want to make sure that support exists to enable to women who want to keep their baby, as well as support for those who choose an alternative. Not trying to convince them to change their minds.

Also I'd be startled if this information is not already discussed by a responsible doctor.

Interesting we're not talking about avoiding the pregnancies in the first place, which I see a step too often ignored.

We have a fundamental disagreement on the first part of your statement Mr. Pres- however Ive proposed an amendment which eliminated the part of the bill which sought to guilt a mother into making that choice...the rest is simply informative
Information discussed by doctor- I'm sure it is often not either by neglect of the doctor of will of the mother not to hear it...but the information is crucial for her to hear- complications of the procedure for example. Hell- in the bill it is included to describe to her procedures AFTER an abortion to minimize health risks...hardly discouraging to her

I would also be happy to work with you to find ways to reduce pregnancies...


Finally- I want to bring up something that JCL had earlier brought up... while I am slightly more willing to amend this bill then he is- for example my amendment above- I want to point out just how moderate this bill is. It does not seek in ANY way to ban or place restrictions on abortion... it was introduced and sponsored in the US Congress by mostly Democrats including figures such as Harold Ford JR, Marion Barry, Marcy Kaptur, etc... supported by figures such as Paul Begala, James Carville, and Martin Sheen...

My point is this- this bill in itself IS a compromise...a manner to provide support to women so they recgonize other options besides an abortion without legally restriction abortion to her

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Sbane- I appreciate your feedback and I am glad to see that we aren't too far off from each other here... however I will not consider that amendment friendly as I believe information about how the procedure is performed and alternatives are crucial for women to know...and also defining child as including the unborn can help a woman obtain greater insurance benefits during her pregnancy

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Aye

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Nay

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Aye

[CLARENCE 2015!]

WOO...HOO!!!!!